After reading those impressive all-around numbers from Barnes, one would be inclined to believe the former Memphis Grizzly has been a catalyst for the early success of Golden State. After all, how can a 15/6/4 player be a bad thing?

Well, surprisingly, the Warriors have gone 2-3 when Barnes gets extended time over 20 minutes.

One might argue that the reason for that is because Barnes is a bench player who usually gets extended minutes when the game is out of reach. That idea is crushed, however, when you take a look at those 5 games with a closer eye.

The 5 games in which Barnes has been seen north of the 20-minute-mark, were predominantly close contests. For one thing, 2 of those showings were Golden State victories (against San Antonio and Utah). 2 more of those games were decided by 5 points or less (in New Orleans and at Milwaukee).

The only game in which Golden State lost by a large amount (11 points) and Barnes received a surplus of minutes was his 31-minute game in Denver, where (despite a strong, 21-point showing himself) he allowed Carmelo Anthony an easy 30-points (on 62% shooting).

For a clearer view on the subject, lets look at Barnes’ games when he plays over 15-minutes (there have been 9 of those so far - nearly double his 20-minute showings).

In those games, Golden State has gone 3-6.

Truly, Warrior fans agree that Barnes has been an, overall, good thing for Golden State. But one can’t help noticing that the Warriors have failed twice as often as they’ve won when Barnes is in the game for over 15-minutes. Could Warrior fans simply be giddy because he's a small forward not named Mike Dunelavy?

Is Matt Barnes really a workable piece to Golden State’s puzzle... or is he causing more problems than he solves?

He is certainly helpful... it's just (most of the time) the only time he gets real minutes is when a major player is out (Baron, Pietrus, whoever). That's why the record isn't over .500. He's definitely helping, and I'd keep him but Biedrins/Ellis/Diogu/Pietrus are first priority.

Helpful. I think he's just as productive as Pietrus. During that stretch with Baron and Pietrus out, Barnes really stepped up and showed us what he could do. But now that his minutes are back down, he hasn't really been himself lately. To me, Matt should be before Pietrus in the rotation. And not only that, he keeps Dunleavy on the bench!

I think that the +/- stat (that was basically a primitive version thereof) is next to useless unless there's a shitload of context (IE winval) and adjustments. Heck, by your stat dunleavy should be playing more minutes (I did a similar thing the other day and found out the team theoretically does better when dung plays 30+ minutes).

I think what's more important is that Barnes is in our two most successful lineups thus far and a much higher percentage of the lineups he's been in have been successful than MP or Dungboy.

there are also lies damned lies and statistics. Go to a Ws game and watch Dung and barnes off the ball, and it is clear that the offense flows better with barnes out there, and defense is not even a close call. I would not have Barnes in my starting five when all are healthy...that would be BD, Monta, JRich, Ike and Biedrins, but I would definitely have him off the bench prior to Dung

To Live is A Value Judgment - Albert Camus
3 reasons for living: Jazz, Hoops and women

Count me in with what Pest and Colt said. Of course he has helped. Without him, we probably would have lost a couple more games (that couple we won when he played over 20 min) while he didn't really change the outcome of the three we lost.

#32 wrote:After reading those impressive all-around numbers from Barnes, one would be inclined to believe the former Memphis Grizzly has been a catalyst for the early success of Golden State.

I, myself, think Barnes deserves to be in the starting lineup at SF... but I as hoping to stir up some conversation by making it seem like he hurt the team more than he helped. Didn't work. Everyone's agreeing with each other.

they both offer good and bad stuff, both are good coming off the bench. Barnes is a better defender and brings more hustle, mike is a better ball handler and passer and knows the offensive sets better. I'd say they are both streaky shooters, but Barnes shots look funnier. It just depends on what the warriors need when they bring a guy off the bench.

Yes, but the rest of the description pretty much matched the dream-situation of what we wanted Mike Dunleavy to be.

I mean, in a full-time role (meaning 20 or more minutes), Barnes is averaging 15 points, 6 boards, and 4 assists (with great percentages all around). Isn't that the stat-line we all hoped Dunleavy would achieve someday?

Barnes is playing well and that has been a stroke of fortune for the team since there was a chance he would be cut before the season. Barnes provides what is needed and he should be the first or second guy off the bench right now